- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 3792 OF 2021 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: 1. G KUMAR S/O D GOPAL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2. SMT. S LAKSHMI W/O SRI G KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 302, 3RD FLOOR, SRI KRUPA APARTMENTS, NO. 25/5, 7TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. IDBI BANK LTD RETAIL RECOVERY, IDBI HOUSE NO.58, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER - I DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL JEEVAN MANGALA BUILDING 2ND FLOOR, 4, RESIDENCY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP M.R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2026) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO HOLD THAT THE R-1 BANK CANNOT ENFORCE THE ORDER DTD.28.11.2006 PASSED IN O.A.NO.128/2005 PASSED BY THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BENGALURU ANEXURE-G AND THE RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-G) AND THE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE DTD.28.11.2006 ANENXURE-H AGAINST THE APARTMENT PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER SITUATED IN THE 3RD FLOOR OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.25/5 7TH MAIN 11TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGLAURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “a. Hold that the 1st respondent Bank cannot enforce the order dated 28 November 2006 passed in OA No. 128 of 2005 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru [Annexure G] and the Recovery certificate dated 28 November 2006 [Annexure H] against the apartment purchased by the petitioner situated in the 3rd floor of the property bearing no 25/5, 7th Main, 11th Cross Malleswaram, Bengaluru; and b. Consequentially quash the warrant of attachment of Immoveable property dated 14 December 2020 passed in DCP No. 4243 of 2006 (Annexure K) and Notice for Settling of Sale Proclamation dated 14 December 2020 passed in DCP 4243 of 2006 (Annexure L); and c. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.” 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased Apartment bearing No.302, measuring 2,350 sq. ft., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 which was originally allotted to the share of Smt. B.Sharadamma and Sri. B.N.Satyan. However, one G.P. Prabhu is stated to have created forged sale deeds in respect of the said apartment, which had fallen to the share of the vendors of the petitioners and fraudulently mortgaged the same in favour of M/s.Sreenidhi Souharda Sahakari Bank to obtain a loan. It is further submitted that, when proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners participated in the auction conducted by the Bank and purchased the property. Pursuant thereto, a sale deed came to be executed in favour of the petitioners on 30.08.2004. It is also submitted that the very same borrower had created multiple mortgages over the property in favour of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Andhra Bank and respondent No.1–IDBI Bank Limited. It is stated that Andhra Bank had filed O.A. No.133/2006, which came to be dismissed against the vendors of the petitioners are concerned. Oriental Bank of Commerce had filed O.A. No.214/2004 before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had filed W.P. No.45797/2011. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 08.08.2016, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 disposed of the said writ petition. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “7. At the outset, it is to be noticed that in a normal circumstance, when the recovery proceedings under the proceedings initiated by the DRT is an issue for consideration, an appropriate proceedings will have to be initiated. However, what is necessary to be noticed in the instant case is that the petitioners though are making out a grievance with regard to the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents herein and the Recovery Certificate dated 13.10.2005 issued in O.A.No.214/2004, are in fact before this Court asserting a right which had become absolute in favour of the petitioners based on the sale deed dated 30.08.2004 executed in exercise of the right under SARFAESI Act by another bank. In that light, essentially what requires consideration herein is with regard to the manner in which the proceedings in DCP No.3718 is taking shape if such recovery proceedings is initiated in respect of the very property purchased by the petitioners under the sale deed dated 30.08.2004 (Annexure-C) to the petition. In this regard, though the petitioners have the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 opportunity of filing an objection statement in DCP No. 3718 in O.A.No.214/2004, these aspects of the matter require clarification by this Court and in that light, a direction is required to be issued to the Recovery Officer. 8. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, as noticed, the property which is purchased by the petitioners in a process known to law was also considered by the DRT in O.A.No.133/2006 and the sale as made by M/s Sreenidhi Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha Bank has been accepted by the DRT and the claim of the Respondent No.1 herein is a claim which is of the similar nature. 9. Therefore in respect of the same property, if respondent No.1 is laying claim, certainly such claim would not be sustainable at this juncture. It is no doubt true that as contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.1-bank, the property viz., the flat though indicated as No.302 in the sale deed dated 30.08.2004, the recovery proceedings under DCP No.3718 in Ο.Α.Νο.214/2004 refers to the specification of property as the residential apartment bearing No.3A. However, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 fact that in both the documents, the residential apartment referred to is situate in the Municipal Corporation No.25/5, 7th Main, 11th Cross, Malleswaram, Bengaluru-560 003 cannot be in dispute. 10. Therefore, ultimately it boils down to the issue as to whether the original borrower from all these three banks had more than one flat in the 3rd floor of the said building and whether it is a different property that had been mortgaged in favour of respondent No.1. As evident, insofar as the consideration that was made by the DRT, when the Andhra bank had filed the claim petition in O.A.No.133/2006, the property was not found to be a different one from the property which has been purchased by the petitioners. 11. If that be the position, in any event, in respect of the property that is purchased by the petitioners under the sale deed dated 30.08.2004 through its description is required to be protected in favour of the petitioners even if the number is differently mentioned. Therefore, irrespective of the specification indicated in the proclamation of the sale issued in DCP No. 3718 in Ο.Α.Νο.214/2004, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 Recovery Officer would be entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property only if there is one more flat other than the flat which is sold under the sale deed dated 30.08.2004 which is stated to be in possession of the petitioners. In any event, the property which is purchased by the petitioners cannot be made the subject matter of sale under the said proceedings and the proceedings for recovery will be only if any other property of the borrower is identified. 12. Therefore, though the order dated 30.10.2006 and the Recovery Certificate dated 15.11.2006 as at Annexures-E and F does not call for being set aside in the instant proceedings, it is clarified that the Recovery Certificate shall remain valid against the respondents therein i.e., the borrowers from Respondent No.1-Bank for the purpose of recovery of the amount for which a certificate has been issued, from any other property other than the property that is described in the sale deed dated 30.08.2004 as at Annexure-C to the petition. 13. To ensure that the property which the petitioners have purchased does not become the subject matter of the proceedings before the Recovery Officer in DCP No. 3718 in O.A.No.214/2004, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 petitioners are granted the liberty of filing objections to the said proceedings and bring these aspects to the notice of the Recovery Officer. The same shall be kept in view in the background of this order and appropriate orders be passed by the Recovery Officer. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed.” 3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.45797/2011, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is exactly covered by the said order and therefore, the present writ petition needs to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1– Bank submits that the property was mortgaged in favour of the Bank on 07.12.1998, whereas the mortgage in favour of M/s.Sreenidhi Souharda Sahakari Bank was created subsequently on 14.10.2001. It is therefore contended that the respondent–Bank has the first charge over the subject property. It is further submitted that the order passed by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 Debts Recovery Tribunal in the concerned Original Application is a well-considered order and that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief from this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that there are documents to substantiate the mortgage created in favour of the Bank and its subsisting rights over the property. However, this Court is not inclined to go into those aspects in the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.45797/2011. 6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. 7. The Oriental Bank of Commerce and the present respondent–Bank stands on the same footing. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No.45797/2011, has elaborately considered the manner in which the petitioners had purchased the subject property in a public auction conducted under the SARFAESI proceedings. The Court, after considering all aspects in detail, disposed of the matter by observing that the Recovery Certificate shall remain valid against the borrowers of respondent No.1–Bank for the purpose of recovery of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 amount, but only in respect of properties other than the property described in the sale deed dated 30.08.2004. The Court has further observed that, to ensure that the property purchased by the petitioners does not become the subject matter of the proceedings before the Recovery Officer, the petitioners are granted liberty to file objections to the said proceedings and bring these aspects to the notice of the Recovery Officer. The same shall be kept in view in the background of the order and appropriate orders shall be passed by the Recovery Officer. In the light of the above, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The petitioners shall file their objections to the proceedings before the Recovery Officer within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. ii. The Recovery Officer shall consider the objections of the petitioners in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.45797/2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15677 WP No. 3792 of 2021 iv. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6